Topic Representation and Learning Object Metadata

By Stephen DownesJan 25, 2002

Topic Maps:

From "The TAO of Topic Maps":
"Topic maps are a new ISO standard for describing knowledge structures and
associating them with information resources. As such they constitute an enabling
technology for knowledge management. Dubbed “the GPS of the information universe”,
topic maps are also destined to provide powerful new ways of navigating large
and interconnected corpora."

The maps are derived by identifying topics, noting occurrances, and drawing
associations. Though it is not explicitly stated in the documentation I read,
the grouping of topics in this way - properly called 'clustering' in AI literature
(see Rumelhart & McClelland, eds., Parallel Distributed processing, Volume
1, Introduction (I forget the exact name of the paper & my books are
in a moving van somewhere in Ontario) - may be generated using neural net
technologies.

While topic maps conform to an ISO standard (ISO 13250:2000 ) topic maps
are unformtunately not expressed in RDF (Resource Description Framework (W3C
- http://www.w3.org/RDF/
). So the discussion around topic maps appears to have peaked
in mid-2000.

RelaxNG

Entities and entity relationships are defined in RDF using schemas (
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/
). In RDF, a schema describes how to use RDF to describe RDF vocabularies.
Think of a schema as a dictionary XML files can use to define the names,
meanings and allowed values for XML tags.

RelaxNG is an alternative schema language. It replaces the W3C's schema language
with something that is easier to use and (importantly) write software for.
RelaxNG is a combination of two previous alternative schema languages. The
advantage is that it putrs the capacity to write schemas - and therefore,
various new types of XML documents - into the hands of many more people than
the W3C specification would.

Created by ADL (Advanced Distributed Learning), a partnership of commercial,
educational and government organizations, the Sharable Content Object Reference
Model (SCORM) is a set of standards intended for use by organizations providing
learning to the U.S. military (and therefore, to military organizations in
allied nations). ADL’s SCORM draws on the Instructional Management System
(IMS) protocols and extends them, defining course metadata and program interface
specifications.

SCORM and IMS have esssentially two components:
· A set of application program interfaces (APIs)
that define how learning objects communicate with learning management systems
· A schema for describing learning object metadata
in XML
Of these, only the second part is relevant to the current discussion.

Despite their detail (SCORM defines roughly 60 tags or so) both IMS and SCORM
are limited in their application. Many of the tags define bibliographical
information - the author of the learning object, the publisher, etc. - and
other tags describe its educational functions - degree of difficulty, length,
level. There is limited description of the topic area of the learning object.

One purpose of SCORM and IMS metadata is to facilitate the location of learning
objects from a repository. In small or medium sized repositories, an instructor
or student can locate a small set of learning objects by identifying the
topic area and the level of learning required. However, as the granularity
of learning objects decreases (that is, as a learning object is a smaller
chunk of learning material) and as the size of learning object repositories
increases, there will be a need for much more fine-grained topic descriptions
than SCORM or IMS provide.

It should be pointed out that similar issues will arise in other areas related
to the application of SCORM. The metadata defined by SCORM may be found to
be insufficient for a large number of learning object properties. For example,
rating of learning objects by professional associations, pricing and copyright
information required under digital rights management schemes, and cultural
appropriateness guidelines established by church and cultural groups, all
fall outside the bounds of SCORM. Additionally, because SCORM was defined
for a military market (and because IMS is defined in a largely American context),
the definitions provided my SCORM and IMS may be inappropriate in a global
context (hence we see the development of additional basic learning object
metadata schemas in Canada, Australia and Europe).

One way to generate the additional information needed is to define additional
schemas defining additional tags available for use by learning object metadata
(this may be a major reason why the most recent version of SCORM explicitly
adopts RDF). Additionally, the use of multiple schemas allows description
metadata to be generated from multiple sources. Complex metadata about a
learning object, for example, could be generated by reading SCORM-compliant
metadata about the object generated by the object's author and rating and
certification metadata about the same object generated by an independent
professional association. These two sets of tags would be combined to form
a single, complex metadata description, which in turn could form the basis
of an instructor or student's learning object selection.

In order for third parties to generate their own metadata about a learning
object, they need to be able to create schemas describing this new metadata.
For example, a professional association may have a tag indicating whether
the material was approved or rejected by their review board. A schema language
like RelaxNG may be used to generate this schema, since it will be easier
to use to define the schema and hence perhaps more appropriate for a body
that is not comprised of computer professionals (that said, most likely they
will use a schema generation tool).

To create the fine grained topic descriptions needed to search for smaller
chuncks of learning material in larger learning object repositories it would
be useful to have something like topic maps, for two reasons:
· topic maps can be generated automatically from
a set of data using neural network processing
· topic maps can achieve fine levels of description

As defined above, however, topic maps cannot be used to define learning object
metadata schemas because they are not expressed in RDF-compliant format.
However, a great deal of work has already been done in the area of representing
topic specific information in XML.

Semantopic Web, for example
http://www.universimmedia.com/semantopic.htm
is a merger of the concept of RDF semantics and topic maps. Semantopic
Web is mostly a project directed toward the representation of semantical
topic maps (for example, there is a graphical version using generated Scalable
Vector Graphic (SVG -
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/Overview.htm8
). Input into the Semantopic web is limited to forms-based input,
and output is restricted to data using a small number of schemas.

There are two major ways topic representation is applicable to learning object
metadata:
· As a mechanism for generating topic-specific schemas
for learning object classification
· As a means of dynamically organizing learning
object repositories for search and retrieval functions

Learning object classification: in order to place learning objects within
a curriculum framework, it is necessary to have a langauge that represents
the elements of that framework, and then to have a set of tags in learning
objects that contain elements of that language. For example, a mathematics
course may have a short segment on 'the definition of right triangles' .
In order to locate this element of the curriculum it is necessary to have
a description of mathematics as a field of study such that 'the definition
of right triangles' occupies a certain niche in the curriculum.

The curriculum, therefore, would be an XML file that employed, among other
schemas, the schema used to delineate topic areas within the field of mathematics
(indeed, the curriculum just is an ordered subset of the values of instances
of that schema). A person creating a curriculum would select and order topics
from the topic area map of mathematics.

At the same time, learning objects covering matematical topics would also
employ the schema used to delineate topic areas in mathematics. This allows
the author of the learning object to precisely place the learning object
into a specific topic area and to add metadata (over and above the SCORM
standard) describing that placement.

An instructor or student searching for learning materials may therefore work
with a curriculum. The curriculum identifies specific topics within a field
of study. Learning objects may be identified according to their location
in that field of study. Therefore, the student or instructor would be able
to obtain a list of learning objects specific to a particular elelement of
the curriculum.

Such a structure allows for a great deal of dynamism. For example, it allows
the owners of a curriculum (a school board, say, or a provincial government)
to change the curriculum without thereby requiring a change in the metadata
describing thousands or millions of learning objects. Moreover, this new
curriculum would be immediately reflected in the subsequent creation or selection
of any courses. It also allows new or extended domains of learning
to be added without requiring changes in learning object or curriculum definitions.

Finally, because topic mappings may be generated dynamically from a body
of knowledge using neural net technologies, the use of topic maps may also
provide an alternative method for searching learning object repositories
(and also, an alternative method for generating curricula). This, of course,
does not preclude schemas and topic maps created by hand by bodies of experts
or professional associations who may have an interest in describing a field
of study a particular way (for example, biologists would probably prefer
to use existing schemes for classifying plants and animals rather than to
allow a neural net to do it for them).